> how is it cheaper to have warehousing run by your sellers When you think about the people selling on Amazon's platform as "partners" then your point is very

> how is it cheaper to have warehousing run by your sellers When you think about the people selling on Amazon's platform as "partners" then your point is very valid. When you think about those other sellers as "competitors" then this strategy makes a lot more sense. A lot of third parties have complained that they joined Amazon's platform, did well, but then had an "AmazonBasics" version of their product turn up, under-cut them, and appear at the top of rankings squeezing the original product out. For example, search on Amazon for "Ladder Golf." Top ranked result and "Amazon Choice" is an AmazonBasics set for $26.99, added in May 2016, with only 51 reviews. The second result, by GoSports, has 748 reviews, has sold since October 2012, but for $49.99. You'll note that Amazon's product added four years after GoSport's product has a strikingly similar design. My point is, this is what Amazon does. It waits for sellers to do well, clones their product, and then competes with them on price (which Amazon can due to its sheer scale). You could legitimately argue customers benefit from lower prices, which is undeniable, but customers also benefit from a competitive marketplace. Once Amazon has no competition they can increase prices again. PS - I have absolutely no association with any of the products or companies listed above. I picked "Ladder Golf" as an example as a lot of people don't realise AmazonBasics has expanded well beyond electronics/cables/batteries into things like toys, household goods, garden supplies, and so on...